Grey Knights cleansing flame and Dark Eldar

[Brycec13]

When the models with clensing flame are in close combat with wyches, does the cleansing flame force the wyches to use their 6+ armor save instead of their 4+ invulnerable save.

p.27 in the Dark eldar codex says that "Wyches have a 4+ invulnerable saving throw against wounds caused by close combat attacks."

[DarkLink]

I don't think Cleansing Flame qualifies as a CC attack, though I don't have the codex on me to read its rule. Basically, after combat starts but before any blows are struck, you take a psychic test and all enemy models are wounded on a 4+. It's not explicitly a CC attack, so they may or may not get their invuln.

Once again, GW's inability to precisely define anything causes problems. Why can't they just define all wounds as "shooting", "cc attacks" or "other" for the purposes of cases like this.

[Lerra]

I would say no, based on the fact that it's a psychic power that happens in the assault phase, not a close combat attack. Cleansing Flame also happens outside of the initiative order.

It does seem sort of bogus though, especially because CF counts toward combat resolution.

[DrLove42]

Yeah the fact CF counts for combat resolution suggests to me that it is a CC and you get to use the 4+ invulnerable

If not lets hope you have your first pain token....

[DarkLink]

Just because it counts towards CR doesn't mean it is a CC attack. There are other non-CC attacks that count towards combat resolution as well, though they're not common. For example, rolling a 1 on a Daemon weapon is not a CC attack, but still counts.

[Necron_Lord]

Yeah the fact CF counts for combat resolution suggests to me that it is a CC and you get to use the 4+ invulnerable

If not lets hope you have your first pain token....

Unfortunately, I would say no, as they still get to attack that assault phase. I see it as a psychic affect attack that only can occur in the assault phase. In short, assault them with Incubi and not wyches.

Of course, shooting the buggers would be even better!

[Brycec13]

Yeah when i played them I happened to roll a 6 on combat drugs but as we were playing i realized that if i didn't have feel no pain, my wyches would have been gone fast. I wish that GW would clarify this and i understand that it isn't a cc attack but even within the GK codex their are different wordings between swords and one of the other weapons. They need to review terribly.

I appreciate everybodys response. I played it as 6+ but wanted to make sure. Thanks

[Brycec13]

In short, assault them with Incubi and not wyches.
Problem there is they have the initiative on Incubi and power weapons so Incubi don't really help.

[Tynskel]

There a only two attacks in the game: shooting or close combat. Cleansing flame is not a shooting attack, it happens in the assault phase, an d it counts toward cc resolution-- it is a cc attack.

[DarkLink]

There are plenty of other ways to cause wounds through various means other than shooting or CC. Shooting and CC make up the vast majority of wound causing thingies, but just because something causes wounds does not make it a shooting or CC attack.

[Necron_Lord]

Problem there is they have the initiative on Incubi and power weapons so Incubi don't really help.

No, they don't. They are I 4 and Incubi are I 5. If the Purifier squad switched their Nemesis Force Swords with Halberds, then you would be correct as their Initiative gets modified by a +2. If that is the case then definitely shoot the buggers, or attack them with Lady Malys attached to some Wyches/Bloodbrides.

[Xas]

No, they don't. They are I 4 and Incubi are I 5. If the Purifier squad switched their Nemesis Force Swords with Halberds, then you would be correct as their Initiative gets modified by a +2. If that is the case then definitely shoot the buggers, or attack them with Lady Malys attached to some Wyches/Bloodbrides.

at the price tag of halberds on purifiers you'll very seldomly see any purifier wielding a normal force sword.

[jorz192]

The rule that I am looking at says that all unsaved wounds count as being caused in close combat for all purposes.

It's not the official copy as mine hasn't come in yet, but it's pretty clear to me that they would get their 4+ invulnerable save they receive in close combat.

So it's much better than the 6+ you were taking.

[SeattleDV8]

There a only two attacks in the game: shooting or close combat. Cleansing flame is not a shooting attack, it happens in the assault phase, an d it counts toward cc resolution-- it is a cc attack.

Oh really?
And which side does dangerous terrain wounds come under?

[Tynskel]

There are plenty of other ways to cause wounds through various means other than shooting or CC. Shooting and CC make up the vast majority of wound causing thingies, but just because something causes wounds does not make it a shooting or CC attack.

I am gunna call BS.

Name some. Dangerous terrain checks don't count--- that's self inflicted wounds.

[SeattleDV8]

I am gunna call BS.

Name some. Dangerous terrain checks don't count--- that's self inflicted wounds.

So...things that cause wounds but don't meet your shooting or CC standard don't count.
Right, that makes perfect sense....wait no it doesn't.

Okay the 'Nid power Spirit Leech.

[gcsmith]

Um spirit leech counts as shooting.

[DarkLink]

The fact that you can self inflict wounds enforces my point. And what about a psychic power like Sanctuary, that forces the opponent to take dangerous terrain tests? It's a psychic power that can inflict wounds on enemy units, and is clearly neither shooting nor cc. And it's in the GK codex, no less.

GW does not precisely define all attacks in the game as "shooting" or "cc". There's some stuff in a vague "other" category. Par for the course for GW, really.

[Bean]

I have to agree with Dark Link: there are definitely things which can inflict wounds which are neither close combat attacks nor shooting attacks. Dangerous terrain is certainly an example. Spirit Leech is another (it's not a shooting attack at all, and it's clearly not a close combat attack.)

Other examples include wounds due to combat resolution on fearless units, wounds due to Perils of the Warp, wounds that come from an exploding vehicle, and wounds inflicted by a Deff Rolla (or those funny equivalents on DE skimmers).

Face it, Tynskel: you are absolutely and demonstrably wrong on this one.

edit:

Actually, I see that I misread your position slightly--you are saying that there are only two types of attacks, not that those two types of attacks are the only things that cause wounds.

In that, you are correct--there are only two types of attacks, and Cleansing Flame is not a shooting attack. Of course, there's no reason to say that it must necessarily be an attack, either, so your decision to move from those observations to the conclusion that it must therefore be a close combat attack is still quite flawed. There are plenty of things that wound or kill models that are not attacks (as i've demonstrated above). Cleansing flame seems to fit quite easily and correctly into this category.

[Cereal n' Milk]

Oh really?
And which side does dangerous terrain wounds come under?

he said shooting or close combat attacks. As in directed from the opposing player. I don't think dangerous terrain is considered an attack. I don't think it's possible to harm the opposing player in your own movement phase.

[Bean]

Hit the wrong button--sorry.

[SeattleDV8]

he said shooting or close combat attacks. As in directed from the opposing player. I don't think dangerous terrain is considered an attack. I don't think it's possible to harm the opposing player in your own movement phase.

Ahem....Ramming?

[Hive Mind]

Ahem....Ramming?

******* you*.

I was in the kitchen stirring my rather delightful coq-au-vin and thinking about this when I thought about Tank Shock. You have stolen my thunder and ruined my big chance to become accepted. Now I will be banished to the sidelines for eternity, forever a noob.

*In the nicest possible way, of course.

[Tynskel]

Ahem....Ramming?

Ramming doesn't inflict wounds. It removes models.

[Bean]

Ramming doesn't inflict wounds. It removes models.

Actually, it inflicts hits on tanks. It doesn't remove models except through failed death or glory attempts.

But, of course, you've managed to ignore the myriad other examples of things that inflict wounds but aren't attack. Your position is still clearly in error.

[Tynskel]

seriously--
Armor saves taken as normal, by default, that includes invs.
The action occurs during assault, after moves have been made!

it says that wounds caused by Cleansing Flame are counted as having been caused in close combat for ALL purposes.


What more do you need?!?!?!?!

[Tynskel]

Actually, it inflicts hits on tanks. It doesn't remove models except through failed death or glory attempts.

But, of course, you've managed to ignore the myriad other examples of things that inflict wounds but aren't attack. Your position is still clearly in error.

don't you get cover saves from the deff rolla? That's a shooting attack, because you only get cover saves from shooting. Vehicle explodes get covers save.

Perils of the Warp is self inflicted.

[Bean]

don't you get cover saves from the deff rolla? That's a shooting attack.

Um, no and no. You don't get cover from it and it's not a shooting attack.

Also, that's again only one of several examples of things that do wounds and aren't attacks.

You only get cover saves from exploding vehicles if there's an FAQ that says that you do (I'm not sure if there is) and if you do, it's because the FAQ says you do--not because exploding vehicles are a shooting attack (they aren't).

Perils is self-inflicted, but that's a distinction which is entirely irrelevant.

What about wounds from combat resolution against fearless units? What about wounds from Spirit Leech (an effect which isn't a shooting attack or even an attack at all, though you can get cover saves from it, thanks to the FAQ, which makes it clear that your assertion--"you only get cover saves from shooting"--is false, as well).

Again, you're just demonstrably wrong. Things can do wounds without being shooting or close combat attacks. Cleansing flame is not a shooting attack. It is not a close combat attack. It isn't an attack at all. It is just one more way in which models can be wounded without being attacked.

[Tynskel]

you only get cover saves from shooting attacks. Look at the definition of cover saves. The FAQ stating you get a cover save inherently determines the type of attack.

Fearless wounds are essentially assault attacks. They occur during the assault phase, and only during assault phase, just as all other assault attacks.


Cleansing Flame states to treat it as caused in close combat for ALL purposes. It is an assault attack.

[Bean]

"having been caused in close combat" is not at all the same as "having been caused by a close combat attack." After all, No Retreat wounds aren't close combat attacks, but they do happen in close combat and cause wounds--much like Cleansing Flame.

[SeattleDV8]

Cleansing Flame states to treat it as caused in close combat for ALL purposes. It is an assault attack.

No what it states is that "unsaved wounds" are treated as if caused in CC.

Unsaved wounds are after the saves and doesn't help here.

Hivemind; And a happy '**** you ' to you....Heh

[Jwolf]

:mad: I just deleted the last two messages from ArchonPhelps and Tynskel. I am bored of you two sniping at each other. Take it to PMs to work out your tensions or just cut it out. There are other boards out there that support personal attacks and garbage posts; feel free to go there and slap fight, but no more of it here.

[Tynskel]

ah, yes, there is that little part about unsaved wounds.

hah,

I censored my self censoring!

you have no idea what I previous said that I censored then erased!